I'm thinking placement is a good part of it as Milpai mentioned. I have Dynaudio - similar size to the Arro and they image like crazy with a powerful amp and very little toe-in. That said, imaging is one forte' of planar speakers in general- the Martin Logans I heard had Alisson Krause positioned firmly in the center between the speakers and spooky realism (this was in a treated room- the owner spent 10k on an engineer and wall treatment) so enjoy!
Possibly controversial: Totem arro overrated?
Alright, I may very well need to put on my flame suit here. Now let me preface by saying this: I had a pair of Totem Arros and loved them I found them to be lovely little speakers with a high WAF and lovely finishing details. What I didn't really witness however, was the unbelievable imaging that everyone talks about, the image would waver from left to right and become sort of ubiquitous when it should be dead center.
Comparatively, for instance, I've picked up a pair of Martin Logan SL3, and using the same amp and source, I'm getting a rock-solid center image and more depth and width to the soundstage. Are my ears inferior? Is it more so just a continuance of Totem Acoustic marketing when people wax lyrical about the arro's "magical" imaging capabilities? I hate to rock the boat here, but this is just something that I've been thinking about for the past few weeks and I wanted to see if others had thought the same.
David
Comparatively, for instance, I've picked up a pair of Martin Logan SL3, and using the same amp and source, I'm getting a rock-solid center image and more depth and width to the soundstage. Are my ears inferior? Is it more so just a continuance of Totem Acoustic marketing when people wax lyrical about the arro's "magical" imaging capabilities? I hate to rock the boat here, but this is just something that I've been thinking about for the past few weeks and I wanted to see if others had thought the same.
David
- ...
- 17 posts total
- 17 posts total